For Mayor Greg Canuteson has no patience for those who do not support our nation's foundational ideals. "These people are destroying our democracy and the coverage you give to them makes you complicit," he told this lil happy rock. When his election opponent Giselle Fest stated “I looked this up, we’ve only had three lynchings, (in Clay County)” to Canuteson, this was not an observation of historical record but, in his words, “a defense of lynching.” So he made an attack ad with a clip of her stating that sentence only, complete with altered images that conveyed a strawman smear campaign with amateur editing.
That’s a serious accusation. But does it hold up?
Stripped of context, Fest’s remark is a historical claim —
not a moral judgment. It neither excuses lynching nor expresses approval. In
fact, there’s no verb in the sentence indicating how she feels about the number
— only that she reportedly “looked it up.” Interpreting this as a “defense”
requires the listener to assume intent, tone, or subtext that is not clearly
expressed.
No one needs to minimize this history. But correctly stating that
there were “only” three lynchings in Clay County is not, by itself, a defense
of those lynchings. It may be an ill-considered comment, a tone-deaf remark, or
even a poorly phrased observation — but it is not equivalent to endorsement or
approval.
The has led many Liberty residents to wonder what the Mayor
means and why this one sentence is damning and many have concluded that if that
is all Fest said, then she was not making a defense of lynching and have doubted
Mayor Greg as a result.
But the sentence that
Mayor Canuteson selected was part of a much longer statement that was very
damning of Giselle Fest. It is mind boggling that Mayor Canuteson never cited the full statement. But the mayor stopped short of sharing the
full context — a much longer comment Fest made during a June 12, 2024 Liberty
City Council meeting.
Here is Fest’s statement in full, made on June 12th, 2024 at
a Liberty City council meeting
“Thanks to the Liberty Tribune,
I did look that up — we have only had three lynchings… And the reason the guys
were all lynched, one was an arsonist and two were rapists. And you can
actually go through and see the court records, so it had nothing to do with the
color of their skin, it had to do with the fact of their deeds. And the note
that was found in the gentlemen’s pocket… said, ‘we treat them all alike, see
all rapists look alike to us. So we protect our homes.’ And that came out of
the Liberty Tribune. And that was [pinned on] Henry Darley. And it goes on to
tell you who the women were.”
If Canuteson found Fest’s comment troubling, he had reason. Her attempt to rationalize extrajudicial killings — claiming they “had nothing to do with the color of their skin” — shows either a stunning misunderstanding of historical context or a willful rewriting of it. She cites court records as if formal charges erase the racial power dynamics of mob violence. She repeats the language from a 1900 lynching note — “we protect our homes” — not to condemn it, but seemingly to support the mob’s rationale. Furthermore, Fest seems to be suggesting that there is nothing wrong with a lynching if it is not motivated by race. But is a extra judicial killing every justified. The laws of our republic have never justified that.
But instead of confronting the full substance of Fest’s
comment, Mayor Canuteson chose to clip out a single sentence — “we’ve only
had three lynchings” — and frame it as a defense of lynching. In doing so,
he bypassed a far more serious and disturbing truth: that Giselle Fest’s
words stand on their own as a morally troubling reinterpretation of racial
violence, without needing exaggeration or misquotation.
By quoting selectively, the mayor diminished the credibility
of his own criticism and invited questions about his motives. Why distort a
statement that was already damning? Why not trust voters to judge Fest's words
in full?
Racialized Violence Disguised as “Justice”
The case of Henry Darley, referenced by Fest and documented
in a July 1900 issue of the Liberty Tribune, is particularly grim.
Darley, a Black man, was lynched by a mob of approximately 75 white men after
being accused of assaulting a white woman. He was taken from the Liberty jail
and hanged from the courthouse railing. A note was pinned to his body that
read: “We treat them all alike. See? We protect our homes.”
Fest repeats this note almost word-for-word, but manages to add words that that were not originally there. Not to condemn
it, but seemingly to support the mob’s justification.
Historians of lynching, however, have long debunked the idea
that these killings were race-neutral responses to crime. According to the
Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), more than 4,400 Black people were lynched in
the United States between 1877 and 1950 — often without any formal charges or
trials. These extrajudicial killings were typically carried out by white mobs
in public spaces, frequently with the tacit approval of local law enforcement
or government officials.¹
In Missouri alone, the Lynching in America project
identifies at least 60 documented lynchings of African Americans.² The state —
particularly its border counties — was a flashpoint for racial tension during
and after Reconstruction, and accusations of rape were often used to justify
lynchings, regardless of whether any credible evidence existed.
“Lynching was not about justice,” wrote historian W.
Fitzhugh Brundage. “It was about control. It was a way for white communities to
enforce racial hierarchies and punish Black men who were perceived as threats —
not to the law, but to white dominance.”³
A Missed Opportunity for Honest Reckoning
Fest’s remarks not only misrepresent the nature of lynching
— they reflect a broader failure to grapple with its purpose: to instill racial
terror. By suggesting that lynching victims were punished solely for their
“deeds,” and that race was irrelevant, Fest attempts to sanitize what was, by
design, an instrument of white supremacy.
Mayor Canuteson, for his part, failed to meet the moment as well. Rather than confronting Fest’s full comments head-on, he isolated a single sentence — “we’ve only had three lynchings” — and declared it a defense of lynching. But his rhetorical shortcut backfired. By ignoring the larger, more troubling context of Fest’s statement, he obscured the real issue: a whitewashing of one of the darkest chapters in Clay County’s history. The fact that he used an A.I. generated deepfake photo that falsely shows Fest holding a sign that said "defund the police".
Voters deserve honesty — both about the past and from those who seek to lead in the future. In a time of record high inflation, voters would rather have local candidates that speak to concerns about taxes and housing, but instead, we get pontificating about race history. It gets annoying.
But Liberty is not Gotham. Canuteson is Batman not Harvey Dent or Commissioner Gordon. Canuteson's rhetoric is borish and and abrasive and this lil rock doubts that he is who can truly take Liberty forward. He would be better suited as a social justice warrior than Mayor. He is not truly capable of united government. At the end of the day he is still the man who wants to raise taxes in a time when we are burdened by heavy inflation. He may be the hero Liberty deserves but he is not the hero we need right now. So this lil rock will take him to task and hold him to the fire. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a self-appointed silent guardian, a watchful protector against racism. A dark mayor keeping us safe from racists that go bump in the night with his verbal vigilantism . No hard feelings Greg but in the meantime Liberty is still waiting for its white knight.
Comments
Post a Comment